Allahabad High Court
Alok Dubey And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 February, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:25887
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23086 of 2024
Applicant :- Alok Dubey And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mushir Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abhishek Trivedi,G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 05.07.2024, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Farrukhabad, in Revision No.184 of 2023 (Ramakant Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. and Others), Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Farrukhabad.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the marriage of daughter of complainant has taken place with brother of applicant no.1 but there was some dispute between them. Applicants are brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of the daughter of complainant and they were falsely named in the complaint. After considering the material on record, by order dated 24.08.2023 learned Judicial Magistrate has summoned only co-accused Amit Dubey (husband) for offence under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Learned Magistrate has observed that there was no basis for summoning of the applicants and the complaint in respect of applicants was dismissed. The opposite party no.2/complainant has preferred a revision against order dated 24.08.2023, which has been allowed by impugned judgment dated 05.07.2024. Learned counsel has referred facts of the matter and submitted that applicants are relative of the husband of daughter of complainant and that no prima-facie case is made out against the applicants and that learned revisional court has not considered facts in correct perspective and committed error by allowing the revision.
5. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers underSection 482of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgement reported inAIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
8. It would be pertinent to mention that in case ofArnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.(2014) 8 SCC 273 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country.Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact thatSection 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand- fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."
9. In Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.(2010) 7 SCC 667, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:-
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints undersection 498AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases."
10. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr.(2012) 10 SCC 741 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter ofG.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors.reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."
11. In K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana(2018) 14 SCC 452 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out."
12. The above pronouncements of Apex Court show that there is tendency of implicating the relatives of husband in matrimonial dispute. It was held that false implication by way of general and omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law.In this connection, a reference may also be made to case ofKahkashan Kaushar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others(2022) 6 SCC 599.
13. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint against applicants and co-accused Amit Dubey, alleging that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with co-accused Amit Dubey in the year 2020 and she was harassed by the accused persons on account of dowry. It was alleged that on 09.06.2022 daughter of complainant was assaulted by accused persons and on 28.08.2022 accused persons came at the house of the complainant and abused and threatened her. The applicants are brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of the daughter of complainant and no specific allegation was made against them. Learned Judicial Magistrate considered statement of complainant and other witnesses and considering law laid down in case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another (supra) summoned only Amit Dubey, who is husband of daughter of complainant. Learned Magistrate has clearly observed that there was no basis of summoning of applicants. It appears that the findings of learned Magistrate have been set aside by learned revisional court without considering facts and law in correct perspective. Considering facts of the matter and aforesaid position of law, no case was made out against the applicants and the learned Revisional Court committed error by reversing the findings of the learned Magistrate. The impugned order is against the spirit of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and thus impugned order is liable to be set aside.
14. The impugned order dated 05.07.2024 is set aside. The order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate is upheld. Learned trial Court shall proceed against co-accused Amit Dueby in accordance with law.
15. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 24.2.2025//'SP'/-
